User talk:Ponyo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey, Ponyo. Happy holidays! I was wondering, would you be able to take a look at a now-archived query I brought up on the Zhoban SPI page? I remain fairly convinced that because of the IP ranges and editing styles that before he created his Zhoban account, this vandal was JohnRamirez. RoySmith opined in 2021 that it wasn't really relevant to merge the pages as neither case is active nowadays, but I believe that consolidating it to one investigation could be helpful, in case he rears his ugly vitriol once more. What do you think? BOTTO _(T•C) 19:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Or, perhaps we could merge everything into the JohnRamirez investigation, given it preceded his Zhoban days? BOTTO _(T•C) 14:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I agree with Roy. There are enough active cases that reaching back a decade+ to evaluate and re-tag accounts is not a great use of volunteer time. Thank you, though, for keeping tabs on this LTA.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 17:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Can you add 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 years on their own page I think it's time to add those years because we are like near the 2030s by 5 years sorry for asking you Chenkens (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Chenkens Not done: it's unclear what you're referring to. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Chenkens: Any pertinent info regarding individual years can be added to 2030s until there is enough notable and reliably-sourced information to create standalone articles on the individual years.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 17:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Didn't 2025 have an article back in like 2010 I looked on its edit history goes way back to 2006 why dont y'all do that to 2030 to 2039 as standalone articles and we are 5 years from 2030 just saying I will stop bothering you after this Chenkens (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The article was created in 2002, however it's important to check the article diffs from the past and to note that things have heavily changed on Wikipedia since the time frame you're talking about. / RemoveRedSky ^[talk] 23:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I explained you the situation, I'm not sure why I've been blocked. There's a user named 'Sinclairian' who repeatedly deletes edits from others, including mine, without providing any explanation. I'm sure you would agree that a proper explanation should accompany the reversal of any edits. Otherwise, what distinguishes a responsible editor from a dictatorial approach in this context talk 00:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You are blocked because you continue to edit disruptively despite much advice on your talk page in March 2022 as to how to discuss your concerns with the article on the article talk page. You have multiple unblock requests on your talk page (you should have only 1, please delete the extra one), another admin will review the block.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 00:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

User contributions for 2001:8003:DDB1:C600:B015:1D76:F1EC:EED4 - Wikipedia

User contributions for 2804:D59:1502:E190:C87B:7449:7AED:608D - Wikipedia

User contributions for Wladimiroclarine - Wikipedia

User contributions for 2804:D4B:9A19:8900:DC7:FA7C:29E5:65C7 - Wikipedia

Pilar Primo de Rivera: Revision history - Wikipedia

User contributions for 2804:D4B:9A08:D000:718F:F8C6:4B73:7AE6 - Wikipedia

I think they should be linked together. Theofunny (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I've reverted their disruptive edits. Theofunny (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Theofunny: If you see addition socking or block evasion, start an WP:SPI using the name of the oldest account for the case name.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 21:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

User contributions for 2001:8003:.&checktime(4000,0,0,':'):0:0:0/35 - Wikipedia, they are at it again. Theofunny (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Ponyo, I rarely disagree with your administrative actions. Although I understand why you chose to pblock the user rather than block them sitewide, based on these edits, AN3 and this one, plus their history, I think an indefinite sitewide block is in order. In addition to their repeated disruptive behavior, I don't think the user is mentally competent to edit the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

They reinstated their edit to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Bbb23: It was near the end of the wiki-work day for me, so I did what I could to start the immediate disruption but admittedly didn't look deeper in the history of the account. If you think an indef or timed site-wide block is more appropriate in this case, then please take whatever action you think appropriate.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 16:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Do you think the edits I reverted at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars makes me WP:INVOLVED?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I've suspected since PonapsqisHous first appeared that it was a sockpuppet for Spooninpot but they seemed to be behaving and making useful edits before their latest meltdown. Did I shirk some responsibility by not reporting my suspicions? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It could be that any SPI would have been closed without action of the evidence wasn't strong enough to make a determination. All buttoned up now though.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 16:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello there, I'm writing this to thank you for the relief that the block of Holiptholipt's IP range has brought me! If the block expires and the topic returns, well, I suppose we will worry about it then (another admin suggested edit filter to me, which seems like a great idea). However, there is an IP range that was missed and which the ban evader continues to use - it has been mentioned by me and User:JayCubby on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Holiptholipt. If you have time, would you be willing to extend the block to that range as well?

Thank you so much, and have a great week! Brat Forelli🦊 23:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for the note Brat Forelli; I've updated the SPI.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 23:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You're welcome, and thank you! Brat Forelli🦊 23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Information icon Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to User talk:Valorthal77 can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. Valorthal77 (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Valorthal77, I'm an admin and a checkuser. Noting that you are creating and using multiple accounts on this Wikipedia every time your old ones get blocked for socking at ar.wiki is not harassment. I'm advising you to declare your accounts and stick to one so that you don't end up blocked here as well.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 22:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I am aware of all that, and I am not editing with two accounts simultaneously. Why did it occur to you to conduct this check at this specific time? Isn’t this a breach of policies on your part by revealing my identity publicly? What is your purpose behind this action? Do you intend to discourage me from contributing to Wikipedia? Valorthal77 (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I can see that you're not editing with two accounts simultaneously, which is why I didn't block you. But you are editing the same topics without declaring your previous accounts, which is an issue. There is no breach of policy, if was your edit history that made the connection to all of your previous accounts clear - I didn't even have to run a check! As there are many, many issues with the articles and drafts you create, you should declare your previous accounts. Editing not only the same topic area, but the same articles, without declaring the intersection of the accounts, can be seen as avoiding scrutiny, especially given your history of socking on another project. -- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 22:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Correction: I have not used sockpuppets in Arabic Wikipedia or any other project while having another active account. That old account has not been used there since November 2022. I had an issue with one of the administrators and decided to leave it behind. My matter with that Wiki is unrelated to the English project. I do not understand why you are taking this serious action and disclosing my identity publicly, especially when the original topic is entirely different. What you are doing could lead to significant consequences. Valorthal77 (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not disclosing your idenity publicly, I have no clue who you are outside of Wikipedia. What I have gathered through even just a brief look at your contributions is that you're editing with multiple accounts on this project without disclosing them. This article overlap is extensive. And you are banned from editing for socking at ar.wiki per this notice and these tagged socks. I had suggested that you declare the accounts on your talk page and restrict yourself to one account so that 1) your editing history is clear and 2) there is no concern that you are also evading scrutiny on this project. There are many to many templates to make the declaration.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 22:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

We have something called the email feature; you could have used it to communicate with me instead of creating an atmosphere of discomfort and intimidation here! Valorthal77 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

There's no reason to use email in this case. Subterfuge is not required.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 22:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I have only one active account, and I am not concerned with anything else. I do not edit using two accounts simultaneously because I am fully aware of this policy. My user page is my right, and I can put whatever I want on it.

Question for you: Why did you bring up this topic now when we were discussing something entirely different? Valorthal77 (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

(edit conflict) Well, I'm concerned. Socking doesn't just mean using multiple accounts simultaneously. What you're doing is essentially stringing one WP:CLEANSTART after another, except they're invalid clean starts due to the fact that you are using multiple accounts to edit the same articles. The reason I brought it up in the first place is because it was clear from just a quick look at your editing history that you were operating multiple undeclared accounts contrary to WP:SCRUTINY given the myriad concerns raised regarding your article creations under your other accounts and especially your particiption in WP:CTOPS articles. -- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 23:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

(talk page watcher) In addition to the other things you're doing wrong, you've been editing logged out since August 21, 2023, with Special:contributions/2001:4645:B0B3:0:0:0:0:0/64. And your edits with those IPs are as prolific and rapid-fire as your various named accounts. And you cannot put whatever you want on your userpage.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

What does this have to do with me as well? Is there a problem with contributing to the encyclopedia in a calm manner? Do we need to ask for permission if we want to make quick edits? Valorthal77 (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I created this account because my previous account was blocked on Arabic Wikipedia without making any edits. I did not create this account with bad intentions or to achieve anything specific. I did not ask for any privileges! Valorthal77 (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not sure why you're not understanding this. If you are editing the same articles here, including contentious topics where your accounts are receiving WP:CTOPS notifications, you should be declaring all of your accounts in order to having issues on en.wiki as well.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 23:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

"However, if an editor uses their new account to resume editing articles or topics in the same manner that resulted in a negative reputation in the first place (becoming involved in disputes, edit warring, or other forms of disruptive editing), the editor will probably be recognized (as a "sockpuppet") and connected to the old account, and will be sanctioned accordingly. Changing accounts to avoid the consequences of past bad behaviors is usually seen as evading scrutiny and may also lead to additional sanctions".

None of this happened. You are falsely accusing me with incorrect allegations. I already told you the reason I created this account is to avoid having any account with issues (i.e. blocked on a wiki)! Valorthal77 (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You've been warned for edit warring. You've edited contentious topics and received CTOPs notifications. Myriad concerns have been raised about your article creations (many of which you just blank from your talk pages). You're creating new accounts without connecting them to your previous accounts despite these issues gives the appearance of avoiding scrutiny (the exact wording of the policy being "Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions." You are creating alternative account that confuse editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. Stop. Stick to one account. Log in to edit. It's really simple. You don't need to post here any more, just don't use multiple accounts on multiple projects.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 23:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I hope this isn't violating WP:RUSUKR to ask, but could you please verify this comment (current link) in your capacity as the Checkuser who blocked that range? They posted to the middle of the discussion and only the OP replied, seems to have said they are the account the OP is reporting in that thread.
Are they just trolling there? I'd have at least risked moving the comment to the bottom where it should have been, but ANI is semi'd.
I also wouldn't have been sure what to do, probably just commented on the fact they were blocked. – 2804:F1...6E:4032 (::/32) (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Bizarre, but I think I figured it out. The IP saw the message on their talk page regarding an AN/I thread about them, and when they went to AN/I to check it out they mistakenly thought the "User:Cherkash mass-spreading of anti-Ukrainian content" thread was the relevant one and replied there as Citing didn't include a direct link to the correct thread in their talk page notification. That's why they replied "that’s not about me or any of my edits" on their talk page.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 00:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I've made a note at the Cherkash-related thread to avoid future confusion.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 00:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

That's wild. They replied less than 2 hours after I had notified Cherkash of this thread as well. – 2804:F1...6E:4032 (::/32) (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

hi, is this 222.118.167.36 a proxy? Proxy Checker says no. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, it belongs to VPN Gate. If you're using the IP Check proxy checker at the bottom of IP contribs pages, it's often wrong and is no longer maintained on Toolforge.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 21:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

glad that's finally settled, but

• is full protection necessary, as opposed to ec protection? i doubt it'd matter much what kind of protection is used since the sock involved there has been using ips since the spi, but i kinda forgot which policy would warrant that
• if that's the case, would the same treatment be warranted for khosi twala, tshiamo nong, and denetric malope, who are common targets of the sock's edits, and may be recreated whenever?

admittedly small questions, but satisfaction killed the cat and curiosity brought it back consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 18:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The full protection is just a standard 'create protect' that is generally used on articles that are repeatedly created by sock accounts. It just looks different because it's being used on a target that has content (i.e the redirect) instead of a deleted page. If there is an accepted draft created I'll just undo the protection and the draft can be moved to article space. I'll take a look at the other links you provided. -- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 18:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

huh. i guess that works. thanks, then. hopefully, this will drive someone (hopefully not the sock) to at least attempt an afc process someday

wait, this means i'm contractually obligated to die now. uh oh consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 19:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Keep your eye on the draft pages for all of those articles - I imagine the socks will show up there next.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 19:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Greetings. I saw you patrolling a few visa requirement articles and have a question for you. I have an IP that I am suspicious of but I’m not sure. What do you think? Northern Moonlight 04:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

That's a different sockmaster with a similar interest in travel VISAs. The privacy policy doesn't allow me to connect the IP to an account, but I have blocked it.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 17:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I see you have previously blocked this editor for adding AI-generated text. All their recent edits are huge, and look like they were written by Dr. Spock. Also, look at the history at Egregore. Holy cyborg! Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I actually unblocked them with the agreement they would no longer use AI-generated text, it was Doug Weller who placed the original block. I'll take a look.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 17:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The new account editing at Egregore is technically Red X Unrelated to Hypersite. I'll let Doug review the new edits to see if the concerns that led to his original block have resurfaced.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 17:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hey. That sock IP user you blocked a few days ago is begging for an unblock in the user talk page just to continue making edits in other article's talk pages like a sandbox. Would you mind dealing with that sockpuppet, if necessary? JRGuevarra (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Yamla: extended the block. I have that talk page on my watchlist as well.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 17:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I want to make the pages Monte Carlo, Pool Shark and Maze Invader. But I can't find a full template for the Arcade Games. All of them come from Atari, Inc. can I get help? GyroidGalaxian (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@GyroidGalaxian: The folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games will likely know more than me.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 17:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hey Ponyo; could you take a look at Draft:Bluey season 1 and see if its up to snuff? Thanks much. Utopes _{(talk / cont )} 20:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Don't these types of articles/drafts fall afoul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY? The IP range isn't familiar to me, though.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 20:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

That answers my question, I wasn't going to do anything with the draft but wasn't sure about the IP. Appreciate the time! Utopes _{(talk / cont )} 21:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for stepping into that conversation. I was in the middle of posting a reply when I saw you jump in, so I dropped the stick. I felt like this was a clear situation of reverting problematic BLP, and so I was surprised to be called out for EW. On the user's talk page I was trying to balance the use of engaging conversationally (AGF) but also using the necessary templates for sanctions should they become necessary. For my own benefit, how should I have handled things differently? Cheers! TiggerJay (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If you feel that there are BLP issues and find yourself reverting repeatedly, starting a thread at WP:BLPN is a quick way of getting eyes on the article instead of relying on a WP:3RR exemption.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 17:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks TiggerJay (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for dealing with the IP (and the other account he made). Noorullah (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

There were actually two accounts, they just didn't have a chance to use the sleeper.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 19:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Greetings. Mr. Pereira asked me to rewrite his page for accuracy and to eliminate the promotional aspects of it. This is the reason for all the changes. I first thought I could simply edit the existing content, but then realized there was a promotional tone that was not intended and so I rewrote the content in each section so that it would be factual and not read like promotional content. I respectfully request that the Draft page be moved into the article space soonest. Thank you. Absent.Editor (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Absent.Editor:, if you are editing at the behest of an article subject you need to make the required declarations on your user page. I'll leave the instructions on your talk page.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 19:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello. Can you confirm that this is original account holder? Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Deepfriedokra: long comment left at UTRS.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 19:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, I am @Infomanraf. You deleted one of my pages at 21:36, 11 January 2022, that page was People Playground. I would request knowledge of the reason it has been deleted. The log said I made it as a blocked user. I don't understand since this is my only account. Thanks for reading. Infomanraf (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

That article was created by an account named Yodas henchman. You have never edited that article. Are you the same editor as Yodas henchman?-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 20:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It's very weird. I created it. Thanks anyway, but it's very weird. Infomanraf (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You have made a total of 4 edits with this account, 2 of which are on this talk page. You definitely did not create that deleted article, unless you did it under another account name.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 23:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh that's very weird since I edited more than 50 pages. I don't know if my account bugged or something. Infomanraf (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You either did the editing under another account, or you're confusing us with the French Wikipedia, where you have over 80 edits.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 00:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yeah sorry, I did lots of edits on French Wikipedia. Thanks anyway. Infomanraf (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Ponyo, just wanted to bring your attention two other users involved in Draft:People Playground: Imjusttrashlol and Riod456 .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yeah, it's a game on Steam so you get the usual unrelated editors who are like "I played it so I'm going to write about it!". Did you read the draft? Sounds lovely.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 23:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Um, not until now, and I wish I hadn't. "experimenting on or torturing human-like ragdolls"? I think I'll stick with solitaire.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Right? I have no clue why this world is going to hell in a handbasket.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 23:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Me, I blame everything on Trump and his many supporters. Maybe he plays the game and imagines the ragdolls to be Democrats and federal judges.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

User:10e2 has went and made 12 useless edits four days after they created the account. Please yank their permissions. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Auto confirmed is a much lower bar with little benefit from gaming (unlike EC). Let's see what they use the account for, an if it's a problem it can be revisited.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 00:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@AlphaBetaGamma: Has went?! (Redacted) How welcoming this place is! 10e2 (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Well I guess we have our answer.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 23:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Heya, you have been aware of the persistent sock-puppetry problem at Pooja Hegde's article and her related-films, which can be seen here. The latest account Thesanas continued similar promotional edits. However, could you take a look at this account: Charliehdb, who I think is linked to these accounts. Like previous socks, they have added huge chunks of info to her article from "edit requests" from IPs on the talk page. Similarly, they have also been doing "upkeep" of fluffy articles of Hegde's songs. In this article, Gopikamma, started by the master sock Jomontgeorge and edited by a few more blocked socks, they have made contributions. Similarly, at another song's article, Jigelu Rani (which also finds mention here), they have kept it updated and sources archived, which is exactly what even Thesanas was doing at Hegde's bio. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Charliehdb has been editing here for nearly a year and has 11k+ edits, mostly related to Indian entertainment (films, BLPs, music etc). A cross-over with the many sockfarms operating in the same topic area is unsurprising, so there would need to be strong evidence of socking for a check to be run. Is the information that is being added to the article from talk page requests well sourced and neutral in tone? If so, then that's semi-protection working as intended. If not, then there is indeed a problem.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 15:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ponyo&oldid=1275426879"